Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Our military deaths in Iraq have now passed those of the Mid-East war of 1991. Military families who expected their serving members to be gone a "short" time are beginning to complain. During World War II, once you were deployed, if you were not injured or killed, you were there for the duration -- until we won. In Korea, many GI's were gone for two years or more. In Vietnam, the tour was about a year -- and many military experts cite that as one of our biggest problems there in terms of perceived lack of agression. The idea was simply to somehow get through that year, and get the hell home with no real concern about victory or lack thereof. And, while we are really efficient warfighters, with remarkabel weapons and firepower in set piece battles, we aren't nearly as good at guerilla actions as proven by our experiences in Southeast Asia. The kind of actions we're facing now in Iraq.
We were in Vietnam for ten years. We could be in Iraq that long. Will the American Public support that?
|
I think that we HAVE become good at guerilla warfare - the quick victory in Afghanistan was as much good on the ground guerilla action as was the air campaign.
We've been in Iraq (heck the Persian Gulf region) since basically the Iran/Iraq war broke out - I was part of the tanker escorting brigade in 1988-89 - so I think militarily that beats out our Vietnam commitments.
Our losses have surpassed Gulf War I, true, but, remember, all the political haymaker's being thrown before either GWI or II about "tens of thousands of body bags" being the outcome?
I highly dought we'll see a draft anytime soon - it's political cyanide for anyone that proposes it seriously. The military is constantly changing and adapting (much more faster these days than when I was in, too) - and the all-volunteer force has been fantastic thus far.